I agree with some of the following though not all. I think he is right on target at the Republican party's banckrupcy in ideas and inability to adapt. Falling to the position that the reason for the failure of the party is due to its diverting from its core principles is hopefully not going to win out the minds of what is left of the leadership and dircection of the party and dooming it to further defeat. If Shawn Hannity and Rush are going to lead this party than they party follows them the way of the pied piper.If anyone questions the barren thoughtfulness of the party just witness that some in the party think that putting Palin at the forefront and labelling her a leader of the party is a good idea. Anyone who now thinks this woman can attract anyone new to the right is dreaming. She is turning into a total mindless cad inmo. I am surely dissappointed and becoming quite embarassed by her.I was wrong to think she has her own wisdom or ability to engage in real insightful conversation.

***Ship of foolsNov 13th 2008From The Economist print edition

Political parties die from the head down

Illustration by KALJOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, the title of the “stupid party” now belongs to the Tories’ transatlantic cousins, the Republicans.

There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.

The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.

The Republican Party’s divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his “heart” rather than his “head”. He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael “heck-of-a-job” Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes’ favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains. And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics.

Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party’s electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party’s loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.

This is happening at a time when the American population is becoming more educated. More than a quarter of Americans now have university degrees. Twenty per cent of households earn more than $100,000 a year, up from 16% in 1996. Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, notes that 69% call themselves “professionals”. McKinsey, a management consultancy, argues that the number of jobs requiring “tacit” intellectual skills has increased three times as fast as employment in general. The Republican Party’s current “redneck strategy” will leave it appealing to a shrinking and backward-looking portion of the electorate.

Why is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many conservatives—particularly lower-income ones—are consumed with elemental fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders. They take their opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and the deeply unsubtle Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin’s apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.

Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world. The movement has little to say about today’s pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.

Conservative intellectuals are also engaged in their own version of what Julian Benda dubbed la trahison des clercs, the treason of the learned. They have fallen into constructing cartoon images of “real Americans”, with their “volkish” wisdom and charming habit of dropping their “g”s. Mrs Palin was invented as a national political force by Beltway journalists from the Weekly Standard and the National Review who met her when they were on luxury cruises around Alaska, and then noisily championed her cause.

Time for reflectionHow likely is it that the Republican Party will come to its senses? There are glimmers of hope. Business conservatives worry that the party has lost the business vote. Moderates complain that the Republicans are becoming the party of “white-trash pride”. Anonymous McCain aides complain that Mrs Palin was a campaign-destroying “whack job”. One of the most encouraging signs is the support for giving the chairmanship of the Republican Party to John Sununu, a sensible and clever man who has the added advantage of coming from the north-east (he lost his New Hampshire Senate seat on November 4th).

But the odds in favour of an imminent renaissance look long. Many conservatives continue to think they lost because they were not conservative or populist enough—Mr McCain, after all, was an amnesty-loving green who refused to make an issue out of Mr Obama’s associations with Jeremiah Wright. Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled “Ideas have Consequences”; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.***

As President Barack Obama delivers his inaugural address to a nation filled with anticipation and hope, the vital signs of the loyal opposition appear worse than worrisome.

The new majority of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation Nixon cobbled together in 1972, that became the Reagan coalition of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation in 1984, is a faded memory. Demographically, philosophically and culturally, the party base has been shrinking since Bush I won his 40-state triumph over Michael Dukakis. Indeed, the Republican base is rapidly becoming a redoubt, a Fort Apache in Indian country.

In the National Journal, Ron Brownstein renders a grim prognosis of the party's chances of recapturing the White House. Consider:

In the five successive presidential elections, beginning with Clinton's victory in 1992 and ending with Obama's in 2008, 18 states and the District of Columbia, with 248 electoral votes among them, voted for the Democratic ticket all five times. John McCain did not come within 10 points of Obama in any of the 18, and he lost D.C. 92-8.

The 18 cover all of New England, save New Hampshire; New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland; four of the major states in the Midwest -- Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota; and the Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii.

Three other states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico -- have gone Democratic in four of the past five presidential contests. And Virginia and Colorado have ceased to be reliably red.

Not only are the 18 hostile terrain for any GOP presidential ticket, Republicans hold only three of their 36 Senate seats and fewer than 1 in 3 of their House seats. "Democrats also control two-thirds of these 18 governorships, every state House chamber, and all but two of the state Senates," writes Brownstein.

In many of the 18, the GOP has ceased to be competitive. In the New England states, for example, there is not a single Republican congressman. In New York, there are only three.

"State by state, election by election," says Brownstein, "Democrats since 1992 have constructed the party's largest and most durable Electoral College base in more than half a century. Call it the blue wall."

While that Democratic base is not yet as decisive as the Nixon-Reagan base in the South, and the Plains and Mountain States, it is becoming so solidified it may block any Republican from regaining the White House, in the absence of a catastrophically failed Democratic president.

What does the Republican base look like?

In the same five presidential contests, from 1992 to 2008, Republicans won 13 states all five times. But the red 13 have but 93 electoral votes, fewer than a third of the number in "the blue wall."

What has been happening to the GOP? Three fatal contractions.

Demographically, the GOP is a party of white Americans, who in 1972 were perhaps 90 percent of the national vote. Nixon and Reagan rolled up almost two-thirds of that vote in 1972 and 1984. But because of abortion and aging, the white vote is shrinking as a share of the national vote and the population.

The minorities that are growing most rapidly, Hispanics and Asians, cast 60 to 70 percent of their presidential votes for the Democratic Party. Black Americans vote 9-1 for national Democrats. In 2008, they went 30-1.

Put succinctly, the red pool of voters is aging, shrinking and dying, while the blue pool, fed by high immigration and a high birth rate among immigrants, is steadily expanding.

Philosophically, too, the country is turning away from the GOP creed of small government and low taxes. Why?

Nearly 90 percent of immigrants, legal and illegal, are Third World poor or working-class and believe in and rely on government for help with health and housing, education and welfare. Second, tax cuts have dropped nearly 40 percent of wage earners from the tax rolls.

If one pays no federal income tax but reaps a cornucopia of benefits, it makes no sense to vote for the party of less government.

The GOP is overrepresented among the taxpaying class, while the Democratic Party is overrepresented among tax consumers. And the latter are growing at a faster rate than the former.

Lastly, Democrats are capturing a rising share of the young and college-educated, who are emerging from schools and colleges where the values of the counterculture on issues from abortion to same-sex marriage to affirmative action have become the new orthodoxy.

The Republican "lock" on the presidency, crafted by Nixon, and patented by Reagan, has been picked. The only lingering question is whether an era of inexorable Republican decline has set in.

Adding New Cultural Indicators to the Republican Brand ImageSince Election Night, the cry on the right has been, "culture, culture, culture." And we're probably going to get a bunch of good ideas and a bunch of bad ideas coming out of this new focus. I've talked in the past about Obama as a ubiquitous pop-cultural phenomenon, and looking back to Obama's rise in 2007-2008, perhaps we ought to look closer at his coverage in the non-political media than in the political media. Because we've had a lot of black politicians before, a lot of liberal politicians before, and a lot of charismatic politicians before, but clearly Obama managed to achieve a level of public adoration (deification?) unique in modern political history.

In the end, maybe the institutions that we consider the MSM were less relevant to Obama's rise than the glowing coverage of him in places like Rolling Stone, Us Weekly, Men's Vogue, Fast Company, Men's Health and so on. (We can put Vanity Fair, GQ, Esquire and The New Yorker in the quasi-political magazine category.)Think about Obama's embrace of Jay-Z and Beyoncé. There are a lot of Americans, particularly young Americans, who have no real interest in, say, how federal stimulus money gets spent. But they're sure as heck interested in Jay-Z and Beyoncé. Almost every politician before Obama wouldn't have touched Jay-Z with a ten-foot pole. One look at the lyrics of "Girls, Girls, Girls" (you've been warned, it depicts the rapper assessing and categorizing his harem by ethnic stereotype) and they would run screaming from any stage with Jay-Z. But Obama assessed, correctly, that the "cool" factor of having an association with Jay-Z would overwhelm any complaints about Obama's de facto association with or approval of the seedier side of the life depicted by the hip-hop star.So along comes Obama, and he's worlds apart even from what we had seen nominated by the Democrats in recent cycles like Al Gore and John Kerry. He's black, he's urban, he's young, he's only recently wealthy and tells tales of financial woes as recent as 2000. He can sound like a preacher when he needs to (listening to Jeremiah Wright all those years) but also is the kind of politician your average outspoken atheist could warmly embrace. As a result, you have large swaths of a not-usually-terribly-engaged, not-usually-terribly-interested voting public gravitating to him: African Americans, obviously, but also young voters, urban voters . . . they look at him and see a cultural figure who reflects themselves, not merely a political figure. What cultural markers is the Republican brand associated with? Two things come to mind, the aspects of life that Obama said rural Pennsylvanians cling to, guns and religion. And those are pretty good ones; the country is full of people who take religion seriously and there are a lot of people who enjoy their right to own a firearm, for reasons ranging from hunting to sport shooting to collecting to self-defense. But as we've seen, that's not enough to get a majority of the popular vote or 270 electoral votes, and there are some pretty big swaths of the country -- mostly the West Coast and Northeast -- where those indicators either don't help us or work against us.So, thinking of new cultural traits the GOP could attempt to adopt as some of their trademarks, just off the top of my head . . .Foodies? There are a lot of folks who are passionately interested in food, in a way there just weren't a generation ago. (See Vic Matus's great article from a while back on the rise of celebrity chefs.) Why can't the GOP be the Foodie Party, the one that fights moronic dietary laws like Bloomberg's ban on 20 ounce sodas, California's idiotic foie gras ban, the ludicrous talk of the Food and Drug Administration putting even more stringent regulations on raw-milk cheeses on top of the existing ones. (For Pete's sake, slap a warning label on it letting people know about the risk of raw-milk cheeses.) We ought to be standing up to the Nanny State, and making the case that grown adults who we entrust with a right to vote, a right to own a gun, and a right to speak their minds ought to have the right to eat whatever they want.College-Age Drinkers: Propose lowering the drinking age to 18, on the argument that you'll see less binge drinking on college campuses if 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds can just go into a bar or restaurant and order a beer. If you're really worried about lowering the drinking age across the board, make it legal for those between 18 and 21 to consume alcohol in a licensed establishment, so that a bartender or server could cut them off if there are signs of dangerous intoxication. I guarantee this would make the College Republicans a heck of a lot more popular on campus. Speaking of which . . .Wasteful college spending: Turn the highest-paid university presidents in America into the new villains of our economy, hiking tuition and letting standards slide while they take home ever-bigger paychecks and wildly generous payouts upon retirement. How soft are the Democrats on this issue? They ran the highest-paid university president in America (more than $3 million in a year) for Senate in Nebraska last year. At least the companies run by greedy CEOs are forced to compete in the marketplace; universities can keep going under bad management by sucking up government aid, forced tuition hikes, and alumni donations for a long while.Isn't it time to bring a salary cap to university administrators?

TOPEKA, Kan.—Even if he doesn't enter the race himself, this state's Republican governor, Sam Brownback, is determined to play a starring role in the next presidential election.

Associated Press

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback says he wants to create a 'red-state model' for the national Republican Party..How? By turning Kansas into what he calls Exhibit A for how sharp cuts in taxes and government spending can generate jobs, wean residents off public aid and spur economic growth.

"My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, 'See, we've got a different way, and it works,' " Mr. Brownback said in a recent interview.

Coming off the largest tax cut in state history on Jan. 1, Kansas is now on the leading edge of a growing but still largely untested quest among conservative governors to create growth by dramatically revamping state tax codes.

The Brownback experiment is stirring both praise and anxiety among Kansas conservatives even as it helps spark similar overhaul proposals in the GOP-led states of Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and Oklahoma.

The focus on fiscal innovations in the heartland comes as conservatives nationally seek ways to revive the GOP's standing in the aftermath of its stinging election losses last year. Bruised by the continuing budget battles in Washington, where divided government has led to near-gridlock, top Republicans nationally are holding up Kansas and other GOP-dominated states as examples of what the party might accomplish if left to its own devices.

Mr. Brownback recounts how Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reacted when the two talked recently about the work under way in Kansas.

"Mitch said, 'This is exactly the sort of thing we want to do here, in Washington, but can't, at least for now,' " Mr. Brownback said. An aide to Mr. McConnell confirmed the conversation.

In some of the GOP-led states, governors are looking to slash income taxes while increasing state sales taxes, betting that formula will be better for the economy. Others want to turn projected surpluses from a slow but steady recovery in the national economy into tax cuts. Mr. Brownback is making a riskier wager: that sharp cuts in income-tax rates will pay for themselves by igniting growth. The supposition is that a tax cut will spark more growth, hence more revenue from all taxes, including sales taxes.

Mr. Brownback has boasted that his state is set to go head-to-head with Texas, which has neither a personal nor corporate income tax, in luring new businesses and residents. Lawmakers in other states, in turn, are worried about keeping pace with Kansas or other neighboring states.

"If we don't do this, we continue to see the prospect of falling further and further behind," said Phil Berger, the Republican president of the North Carolina Senate.

The overhauls have reignited a long-standing debate over the efficacy of tax cuts in generating economic growth. Proponents point to a record of growth in many of the nine states, such as Texas, Tennessee and Florida, that have no state income tax. Skeptics note that the U.S. economy sputtered for much of the past decade, despite the tax cuts under President George W. Bush.

Either way, economists agree it could be years before clear conclusions can be drawn from the experiments under way in Kansas and other states.

If successful, the combined tax cuts and pared government spending could reignite slumbering state economies and draw in new residents, while positioning Mr. Brownback and governors such as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Indiana's Mike Pence for potential White House bids.

But if they fall short, the policies could leave Kansas and other states scrambling to fill big budget holes for education and social services, while driving investors to other states.

The tax gambles under way in the red states contrast sharply with proposals put forward by some Democratic governors. The governors of Minnesota and Massachusetts have proposed raising income taxes while cutting the sales tax. The trend promises to create unusually stark divisions between conservative and liberal states.

.Elections in November left all but 13 states with one-party control of both the legislature and the governor's office, the most in decades. Fully half of all states now have veto-proof legislative majorities, making intraparty disagreements the chief potential threat to legislative agendas.

In Kansas, about a dozen centrist Republican lawmakers were targeted by conservatives and voted out of office last year, so Gov. Brownback now enjoys the backing of an overwhelmingly conservative legislature. He is savoring the moment.

"We've got a series of blue states raising taxes and a series of red states cutting taxes," he said in his sunny, cavernous office on the second floor of the Kansas capitol. "Now let's watch and see what happens."

The governor may have few Democrats to worry about—Republicans hold a four-to-one advantage in the state legislature—but his proposals have created fissures in the state's GOP, underscoring that aggressive efforts to pare government and cut taxes can be tough even in a Republican-dominated state.

Mr. Brownback, who made a brief bid for the White House in 2008 while still in the U.S. Senate, signed a steep income-tax cut last year, the first step in what he hopes will be the eventual elimination of the state's income tax, which still generates about 40% of the state's general-fund revenue. He has chopped thousands of state jobs, merged government departments and removed thousands of Kansans from the welfare rolls.

For guidance, Mr. Brownback has leaned on Reagan-era supply-sider economist Arthur Laffer, as well as on Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group funded by the Wichita-based Koch brothers. One of AFP's top consultants, who drafted mock state budgets while working for the group, is now the state's budget director.

But the governor faces an array of challenges. His income-tax cuts, which took the top rate from 6.45% to 4.9% at the start of the year and are targeted to hit 3.5% by 2017, are projected to leave a significant hole in next year's state budget, which starts in July.

The official state economic-forecasting agency predicted last fall a drop of $700 million in revenue in the next fiscal year, equivalent to about 12% of this year's budget, with the decline growing steeper after that. Mr. Brownback's budget proposal for the coming year, released in January, put the figure even higher, at $800 million, or four times what the state spends annually on all its prison facilities.

To make up for the revenue drop, the governor is pushing to preserve what was meant to be a temporary increase in the state sales tax, and to eliminate two popular deductions, including the state write-off for home-mortgage interest payments. Those moves would raise about $600 million next fiscal year. He also wants to transfer more than $100 million from a state highway fund to cover other expenses.

Estimates prepared by the state's legislative research department predict that, even with the steps Mr. Brownback proposes, Kansas is on track to be short of money. The estimates suggest that the state will need to lean on its reserves in the coming years, and lawmakers by 2017 will be forced to make $780 million in spending cuts to prevent a deficit, which isn't allowed under Kansas law. A Brownback aide said the forecasts don't take into account the beneficial impact of the tax cuts.

Still, Mr. Brownback faces stiff opposition to keeping the sales tax at its current rate of 6.3%, not only from the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and many conservative lawmakers, but also from Democrats in the Legislature. The rate is set to fall back to 5.7% in June. A trade group for real-estate agents is lobbying strongly against cutting the mortgage-interest deduction.

At the same time, a recent state-court order in a long-running dispute over state support for the schools said that Kansas was underfunding public schools by more than $400 million a year—a ruling Mr. Brownback and GOP lawmakers are now pushing to overturn.

Mr. Brownback and others believe the tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves by drawing in new businesses and stirring job growth.

The state forecasting body remains unconvinced. In a November report, the group said over the long term, "new economic growth" would likely help offset just "a portion of the revenue loss."

Mr. Brownback and his top aides acknowledge they have taken a leap based partly on faith. "Our out-year forecasts are pretty much guesses," said the governor's revenue secretary, Nick Jordan.

Mr. Brownback said he hopes some new oil exploration in the state will generate unforeseen revenues. Others in his administration point to signs of a turnaround in the aviation industry around Wichita.

Talk of eliminating the income tax altogether has drawn applause from conservatives in the statehouse, who say it will help Kansas compete with low-tax states like Texas. But the proposal has also stirred dissent from centrist ranks of the Republican Party.

Republican critics worry the state's schools and infrastructure will suffer. Others are concerned that an over reliance on the state sales tax may shift too heavy a burden onto the less affluent.

"I fear for what the Republican Party is doing to the country and to Kansas," said Jean Schodorf, who lost her seat in the state Senate last year after decades as a Republican officeholder. "All of what we have built in this state is in jeopardy."

House Speaker Ray Merrick, a veteran GOP lawmaker and Brownback ally, praises the effort to eliminate the state's income taxes as "a bold plan," but says the state has to avoid being rash. "The devil is in the details," he said in an interview. "We don't need to rush this."

Similar strains are showing in other GOP-controlled states looking to follow Kansas' lead.

In Indiana, days after Gov. Pence was sworn into office in January, he proposed reducing the individual income-tax rate to 3.06%, from 3.4%, over two years. The former congressman, who was a member of the House Tea Party caucus, is looking to make a mark for himself after eight years of tax cuts and budget cutting under former Gov. Mitch Daniels.

"Because we can afford to cut taxes for every Hoosier, I believe we should," the new governor said in his first speech to the Legislature.

But leaders in the Legislature, where Republicans have large majorities in the House and Senate, haven't been quick to back his plan. Some question whether it makes sense to cut taxes at a time when the economy still appears fragile and the federal government is passing on new costs to the states.

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma said his priorities are more focused on ensuring fiscal stability. Nor is he convinced an income-tax cut will provide the promised boost in economic growth. He wants to restore some of the government services cut during the recession, while making investments in transportation and education.

Related ReadingTough Loss Leaves GOP at a Crossroads (11/07/2012)."My encouragement to everyone is to look at long-term sustainability and not just an election cycle," Mr. Bosma said.

Over the past eight years, former Gov. Daniels cut corporate income taxes and began the phaseout of a state inheritance tax. The Legislature required any large surpluses to be split between funding state pensions and a tax rebate.

Like Gov. Pence, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin wants to turn projections of a surplus into a tax cut. On Monday, she proposed cutting the state's top income-tax rate to 5%, from 5.25%, a proposal that is smaller and simpler than one that failed a year ago despite large Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.

"This is not the last tax cut we will see from my administration," Gov. Fallin told legislators on Monday.

Other red states are considering similar proposals or even grander plans to eliminate the income tax.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman is pushing to end the state's income taxes and offset the lost revenue by broadening the sales tax to more items, while Gov. Jindal of Louisiana is discussing an end to the state's personal and corporate income taxes. He is looking to replace the revenue by raising the sales tax and broadening it to more items.

Republicans are weighing similar proposals in North Carolina, where developments will be watched all the more closely considering the state's status as a presidential battleground state. Gov. John Kasich in Ohio, another battleground state, proposed on Monday cutting income taxes by 20% over three years.

In Kansas, Gov. Brownback compares what is happening on the tax front in his and other Republican states to the GOP-led welfare overhauls in Wisconsin and Michigan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which paved the way for a sweeping national overhaul in Congress in 1995.

"There will be no model for what we want to do nationally until we can examine how several states have done it first," he said.

Latinos Could Be GOP AlliesBy DICK MORRISPublished on TheHill.com on March 12, 2013

Printer-Friendly VersionA new poll taken by Mexico's leading public opinion researcher shows that U.S. citizens of Latino descent are potentially strong allies of the Republican Party. The survey found strong indications that Latinos in the U.S. are deeply worried that the Democratic Party could lead their new country down the same path to debt and dependence that bedeviled the nations they left to come here.

By 59-34 percent, U.S. Latinos agreed that "Democrats are closer to the leaders we had in Latin America, always giving handouts to get votes. If we let them have their way, we will end up being like the countries our families came from, not like the America of great opportunities we all came to."

By 78-16 percent, U.S. Latinos agreed that Latino immigrants must "not go the way some have gone into high unemployment, crime, drugs, and welfare.

They must be more like the hard working immigrants who came here and worked their way up without depending on the government." More important, when asked which party most shares this sentiment, they chose the Republicans, by a margin of 45-29 percent.

These startling findings come from a voluminous survey conducted by the former Public Opinion coordinator for the office of the Presidency in Mexico, Rafael Giménez. The survey interviewed 1,100 U.S. citizens of Latino origin using telephone, cellphone and many in-person interviews conducted between Jan. 15 and Feb. 15 of this year. The survey was organized and funded by John Jordan of Jordan Winery, a prominent Republican donor.

Latinos feel Republicans are more likely than Democrats to work hard to reduce the incidence of teen pregnancy (45-31); more likely than Democrats to agree that "the family fabric in America is being ripped apart. Parents are too permissive. There is too much divorce, too many unwed mothers, and too many children who don't listen to their parents" (49-32); more likely than Democrats to avoid "ruining the United States" through too much debt (39-37).

By 47-31, Latinos agree that Republicans would do more to "strengthen churches so they can help the poor and teach values of faith and family." By 89-8, they think that "too many people depend on the government and its handouts. That way of thinking is very bad and leads to lifetimes of unemployment, poverty, and crime." And, by 45-37, they believe the Republican Party is more likely to share their view than Democrats are.

So why did the Latinos vote by a margin of three to one for President Obama and the Democrats? According to Giménez's survey, the answer is immigration reform. While national surveys last year showed immigration third or fourth among Latino priorities, this survey put it first by a two to one margin over jobs, which came in second.

Latinos want all "undocumented" immigrants -- by 85-7 they prefer that word to "illegal" -- to be granted legal status immediately, as well as a path to citizenship. But, they are divided on how long the path must be. While 56 percent want immediate citizenship, 44 percent are willing to wait "a few years."

More ominous is their view of why the Republican Party has opposed immigration reform. By 61-32, they say the party is "biased against Latinos and Hispanics."

Latinos are suspicious of those opposed to immigration legislation. While 47 percent credit them with opposing it because they feel that "only people who have obeyed the law and entered the country legally should become citizens," 41 percent see a darker motivation: that they do not want "a lot of Latinos in the U.S." and are "using the law as an excuse to keep them out."

Last week, in this space, I discussed a national survey of Republicans by John McLaughlin that found broad support for immigration reform. His survey found 66 percent of U.S. Republican likely voters support immigration reform with a path to citizenship and 75 percent back the bill from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) after hearing an overview of its provisions.

The issue of immigration reform is life or death for the Republican Party. The party's voters realize it. Let's hope their congressional representatives do, too.

Memo to the GOP: Liberty Is ColorblindPromote Freedom in Every Quarter of America!By Mark Alexander • March 21, 2013 "A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation." --Thomas Paine (1791)

GOP 2014? 2016? A record number of conservatives, from grassroots Patriots to national GOP leaders, gathered for the 2013 CPAC confab last week, sponsored by our friends at the American Conservative Union.CPAC attendees represent the GOP base, though many would not call themselves Republican. This is mostly because the GOP has squandered the conservative legacy of Ronald Reagan, and too many of its current congressional leaders are part of the problem rather than the solution.Among the more notable speakers at CPAC was Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the grassroots voice of the Tea Party movement. Paul aptly summed up the GOP's problem and solution in his rousing remarks: "The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don't think we need to name any names, do we? Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. If we're going to have a Republican party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP. We must have a message that is broad, our vision must be broad, and that vision must be based on freedom."Indeed.Sen. Paul, who offered a few words about our mission last week -- "The Patriot Post provides a clear and substantial voice for America's Constitutional Conservatives" -- is more than just Ron Paul, part deux, as some of his establishment Republican colleagues lament. Rand has much broader appeal than his father, and yet his appeal is every bit as strong as that exhibited by Ron's constituents. Rand Paul represents a fusion between Libertarian and conservative Republican principles, a fusion that, at its core, is already reflected in the Republican Party Platform. (You can read all political platforms on our Historic Documents page.)The problem is, most old-guard Republicans pay as little attention to the GOP platform as they do their oaths "to support and defend" our Constitution. Instead, they subscribe to the Left's so-called "living constitution." As a result, the only political "fusion" they generate in confusion.Shortly after CPAC concluded, the Grand Old Party released an election 2012 "after action report" with GOP initials -- the Growth and Opportunity Project. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus ordered up this 97-page report, and not a minute too soon. Priebus, who proudly carries and reads his copy of our Essential Liberty Pocket Guide, and who arranged for its distribution to all 14,000 attendees at the last GOP convention, said, correctly, "I don't think our platform is the issue."While Priebus chairs a party with some members who are virtually indistinguishable from their Socialist Democratic Party opponents, he is not among them. Priebus is cut from the cloth of Patriot warriors, not armchair diplomats, and his vision for the future of the Republican Party reflects that spirit.It's a spirit that is evident in the Republican report's introductory sentence: "The GOP today is a tale of two parties. One of them, the gubernatorial wing, is growing and successful. The other, the federal wing, is increasingly marginalizing itself, and unless changes are made, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future."The GOP review notes the obvious -- the party is out of touch with the people, especially women, minorities and young voters. That was our message to the Romney-Ryan ticket by way of our Grassroots Memo to Mitt last October. We outlined for Romney what his establishment Republican political handlers would not -- precisely what grassroots Americans needed to hear from him if he was going to defeat Barack Hussein Obama. Unfortunately, that memo never penetrated the gauntlet set up by his handlers.

In our own post-election analysis, we bullet-pointed the consequences of that failure to communicate, and we plotted a road forward to our time-tested conservative roots.The key recommendations from the Growth and Opportunity Project center on a return to the basic message of Liberty, especially in outreach to urban Latino, black and young voters -- and, last but not least, the voters who really determine elections, women.The GOP is spending $10 million to hire an army of grassroots folks permanently posted to communities across the country. The report notes that you reach people where they are, not where you want them to be. There were also some practical suggestions such as creating a national voter database that could be accessed regionally and redirect PAC and other group funds to fund field staff and technology rather than only media ads. In other words, greatly enhance the ground game, which Democrats have done so well. Other key suggestions included tightening up the primary schedule and reducing the number of debates so that Republicans spend less time attacking each other and more time drawing sharp contrasts between themselves and their real opponents. The next Republican National Convention is also likely to take place sooner than August of election year, which would give the nominee more time to focus on his or her opponents on the Left.Post Your Opinion: What else should Republicans do?As Rand Paul declared, "We need a Republican Party that shows up on the South Side of Chicago and shouts at the top of our lungs, 'We are the party of jobs and opportunity. The GOP is the ticket to the middle class.'"The GOP must run candidates with presidential character; candidates who can promote, far and wide, the Reagan model for restoration and adapt it for the 21st century. Their focus must be on restoring Liberty and the Rule of Law.The first step to accomplishing that goal is to understand that Liberty is colorblind. It's not a "white thing." The concept of Liberty is timeless and transcendent, and it can have the same appeal to all people if the messenger will only remember that. Republicans -- even some of the most conservative members within the party -- are mired in the minutiae, and the larger message of Liberty is lost.President Reagan said of Liberty, "An informed patriotism is what we want. ... Man is not free unless government is limited. As government expands, liberty contracts. ... I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."If Republican leaders do not refocus on Liberty and the successful fusion of Republican and Libertarian principles, then, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, "They're finished. They're done. They're yesterday's news. They may not survive. Don't doubt me."And to that I add, don't doubt me.Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut MorsSemper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

Now the self appointed and money backed power broker in the Republican party, Rove would look at this and think here is an opportunity for his party. He would segment the voters the same as the little mass marketers do, and think he could win some of those dissatisfied voters to his camp. How? The same old Republican message. He can't or won't see it doesn't work. Oh yeah it might win an election here or thre but we are losing the battle for ideas. Against a party that as Levin describes votes as a juggernaut. Against a party that has figured the way to win the war, not little battles is to steal enough tax payer money and bribe over 50%. To promise some rich people pots of gold if they will fund them and punish those that don't.

There is always hope as long as we are alive but I think the game is over. How in the world is it that many are already touting another Bush? We already had two. I am not trying to sound like a broken record but Bush one gave us Clinton and Bush two gave us the monstrosity we have now. I have little hope. The country has simply gone socialist, fascist, communist, or whatever you want to call it. Nearly check mate.

The Collapse of the Democratic PartyOriginally published at the Washington Times

At least since the election of President Obama in 2008, Republicans have been hearing that their party is on the verge of extinction. The only thing the media pundits haven’t seemed able to agree on is what will be the cause of death.

Some of the eulogies have claimed that the Republican Party is dying of old age, “literally.”

Other commentators predicted endlessly that the GOP is doomed because it supposedly cannot appeal to hispanic Americans and other minorities. Still others smeared Republicans as anti-women and claimed ridiculously that the party has destroyed its chances with the sex that makes up half the population. Most pundits seemed to agree that younger voters--“millennials”--would never support Republicans because of their supposedly prehistoric views about things like the Constitution and the rule of law.

Jonathan Chait summed up the left-wing establishment’s view of Republicans’ inevitable demise when he wrote in 2012--in a long feature piece for New York Magazine--that “the modern GOP—the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes—is staring down its own demographic extinction... [C]onservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests.”

What a disappointment all of these commentators were in for! Since President Obama’s election in 2008, the Republican Party steadily gained strength. By almost every metric, the party is at historic high-water marks. In the House, Republicans have the largest majority since 1928. They have a majority in the Senate. They have 32 governorships. They have the greatest number of state legislators and greatest number of state legislative bodies in their history.

The results of this week’s elections further grew the Republican Party’s historic strength.

In Kentucky, Matt Bevin won the governorship in an upset that makes him the state’s second Republican chief executive in four decades. He did it by running against Obamacare and national Democrats. Kentucky also elected Republican Jenean Hampton to the lieutenant governorship. She will be the first African American elected statewide in Kentucky’s history.

In Virginia, Republicans held the state Senate despite an outside group funded by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg spending millions of dollars to turn the chamber to Democrat control.

In Houston, Texas, voters defeated the left-wing mayor’s attempt to let biological males use women’s restrooms, and vice versa. The measure went down with 61 percent of voters opposing the bathroom ordinance--a significant blow to the left in a city that is by no means conservative.

In addition, Republicans won a number of other state legislative and statewide elections to continue to build on the trend of winning in areas previously won by President Obama.

Finally, after this week’s elections, the Washington-media establishment may be starting to show signs of recognition that, far from 2010 and 2014 being anomalies on the way to Republican extinction, it is the Democrats who are facing historic challenges in their nationwide appeal.

Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press, noted on Twitter this week that “outside of Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012, the Dem track record everywhere else is, well, abysmal since his election.”

In fact it may turn out to be President Obama’s two campaigns that were the anomaly: extraordinarily well-run, with an exceptional candidate in favorable political environment. Everywhere else, as Todd points out, has been disastrous for Democrats.

You have to wonder: if in 2016 Republicans win the presidency, hold the Senate, keep the House and maintain their historic strength at the state level, will the same pundits in the news media be calling on the Democrats to compromise their core principles and change their views, as so many were eager for Republicans to do following President Obama’s reelection? I’m not holding my breath.

A number of prominent Republicans gathered in Charleston over the weekend for a detailed discussion of poverty in America and what can be done about it. The Expanding Opportunity Forum was hosted by the Jack Kemp Foundation and moderated by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. In short, there are a lot of conservative solutions to poverty, and, given the Left's 50-year track record of failure, it's time to give them a try.Six GOP presidential hopefuls joined the discussion, including Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Mike Huckabee. They were joined by Gov. Nikki Haley and Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute. Current 2016 frontrunners Donald Trump and Ted Cruz spent the weekend on the campaign trail instead, but they missed a substantive discussion and an opportunity to show some empathy for the plight of millions of Americans.

The GOP needs to prove to voters this year that it has not only the ability, but also the willingness to find solutions to the ongoing poverty problem in America. As Rubio stated at the event, "We have an outmoded, outdated government ... and a Big Government Left that is more interested in protecting the status quo than in modernizing our policies to address the challenges of the 21st century."

Since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964 and established his "Great Society," the federal government has spent over $22 trillion in entitlements and grants for programs that have made little to no progress. And in all that time, poverty has never been driven below 10% of the population.As we begin the final year of Barack Obama's term in office, one in seven Americans lives in poverty. There are a record 46 million people on food stamps, 14.5 million more than when he took office in 2009. Nearly 70% of the federal budget is currently being consumed by government income-redistribution programs, and close to 50% of Americans reside in a household that is receiving that assistance.

This is not progress; this is regression — a rolling back of the hard fought economic gains that American industry created over decades. Government agencies dominated by the Left give away money and prizes to minorities and the poor for the sole purpose of winning votes. There is never an attempt made to actually lift people out of poverty. In fact, it is better for Democrat office holders if the poor are kept right where they are. For if the poor are no longer poor and beholden to the government, then what reason do they have to vote for Democrats?

As Benjamin Franklin once said, "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

It will take more than convincing the poor that they are indentured servants on the Democrats' poverty plantation. Republicans have to offer concrete solutions and pierce the stereotype that they are unmoved by the plight of the poor.

Ryan put forth a plan in 2014 that would create federally funded opportunity grants that states could use to distribute aid to citizens as they saw fit. This plan combined 11 current entitlement streams and offered a flexible and equitable means of aid to the poor that was also accountable and measurable.Ryan's plan was much maligned, but it was a start. And the confab last weekend in South Carolina was another step in the same direction. It continues the conversation that needs to be had about what to do about poverty in America. It takes into account all the various sources of poverty, and looks for a solution that lifts all people out of poverty rather than by making everyone equally poor.

Building a Republican Party for the FutureOriginally published at the Washington Times

It’s good practice for teams, businesses, and even political parties to learn as much from failure as they do from success. That was the principle Republicans applied after losing the White House in 2012, when under the leadership of Chairman Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee launched the Growth and Opportunity Project to study how the party could be more competitive. In the 2014 midterm elections two years later, that study and the changes Chairman Priebus implemented as a result paid off in spectacular fashion. At every level from state legislatures to the Congress, the Republican Party is today objectively the strongest it has been in generations.

After the victories of 2014 and 2015, Chairman Priebus understood that the inverse of the old adage is true as well--the party has a duty to learn as much from success as it does from failure. I was honored when he asked me to lead a project to surface the “lessons learned” from these campaigns. Our report, released this week, is the result of dozens of interviews with candidates, campaign managers, and campaign staff for Senate, House, and governors’ races across the country.

The more we learned, the more we were struck with the scale of the changes Republican candidates are navigating--changes in the political environment, in the technology and tactics of campaigns, and in the strategies required to win.

Perhaps the most historic and underappreciated of these changes is the political realignment that has taken place over the past eight years.

As we write in the report:

According to the Gallup Poll, the country has gone from 35 clearly Democrat states and five clearly Republican states in 2008 (as measured by party affiliation), to 14 Democrat states and 20 Republican states in 2015. That is a dramatic swing in the Republican direction.

[...] The GOP has also seen historic growth in state legislatures. Under Obama, the GOP went from 3,223 Republican legislators and 4,082 Democrat legislators at the beginning of the Obama administration to a complete reversal, with 4,113 Republicans and 3,165 Democrats. Republicans gained 890 legislative seats since the first Obama election. The Democrats had a net loss of 917 seats. [...] To get a sense of the depth of the Democratic Party’s decay at the state legislative level in the Obama era, consider that since President Obama took office, 85 of 98 legislative bodies have become more Republican than they were when he was inaugurated.

This realignment has brought with it enormous opportunities for Republicans to expand their appeal to groups that have traditionally supported Democrats but many of which have been served poorly by bureaucratic socialism and the stagnation, frustration, and corruption that comes with it. Contrary to the media-propagated notion that demographics doom Republicans in the long term, the surprising strides by a number of candidates in 2014 suggest that changing demographics offer a once-in-a-lifetime growth opportunity for Republicans if they learn that they can be very inclusive without compromising their principles.

As we write:

Demography is not destiny. Demography is opportunity. In Ohio, Governor John Kasich got 27 percent of the African American vote for re-election. In Texas, Senator John Cornyn became the first Republican in his state to beat his opponent 48-47 among Latino voters in Texas. He received 54 percent of the vote from Latino men.

Cory Gardner went from between 6 and 8 percent support among Colorado's Latino voters in January to tying incumbent Senator Udall at 48-48 on Election Day. Colorado Republicans worked Pueblo, a largely Hispanic area they had traditionally ignored and which now has a Republican Latina state legislator and boosted Gardner's vote above the historic pattern.

Also in Colorado Coffman's surprisingly easy re-election was built in part on his learning Spanish and debating in it (his opponent was more fluent but Coffman got great credit for trying). Coffman also focused on the Ethiopian Christian community which invited him to four churches the last Sunday before the election while freezing out his opponent.

In Texas Senator John Cornyn won Asian-American voters, had a plurality of Hispanic voters and also had websites in Vietnamese and Hindi.

The Republican State Leadership Committee points to a surprising number of Republican minority state legislative victories. For example, the margin of control in the West Virginia House is a Republican African American woman. Republicans received an estimated 50 percent of the Asian American vote in 2014. There are more than 110 Republican minority state legislators and with each election the number grows. Leadership can translate demography into an opportunity, not a problem.

But as we also found, “If demography is not destiny, paying attention to minority voters may be. In every campaign we studied, there was a direct correlation between paying attention to minority communities, events, activities and key dates and the increase in votes...Showing up is the essential first step to building bridges to minority communities.” Inclusion is the key to growing a permanent governing majority.

Republicans candidates for every office from state legislatures to the presidency have the chance to build on these lessons in this year’s elections. And they ignore them at their own peril.

Among other lessons, a few are particularly important to remember at this point in the contests, as general election campaigns are beginning to take shape. In particular, what we learned renewed our conviction that big ideas matter, and that communicated well, they can be decisive.

As we write:

The right big idea or ideas, expressed in clear and simple language with the right tone, can win campaigns. Larry Hogan's intense focus on cutting taxes while refusing to comment on controversial issues propelled him to a shockingly large and unexpected victory as Governor of Maryland. Maine Governor Paul LePage's focus on welfare reform won the votes of a decisive block of voters that may have been the margin of victory in his reelection. And Matt Bevin's focus on reform and smaller government led him to a stunning and surprisingly large victory in the Kentucky governor’s race. The right ideas can act as shields against attacks in addition to defining a positive vision. In Colorado, Cory Gardner seized the initiative and defined women's health on his terms before the left could push him into a "War on Women" defensive position. That focus on ideas, language, and tone was worth more than all of the defensive ads he could have bought after he was negatively defined. It may have clinched his election to the Senate.

Anyone concerned about the future of the Republican Party would benefit from reading these 2016 Election Principles. Candidates up and down the ballot owe thanks to Chairman Priebus for his commitment to learning from the past and building a party for the future.

Your Friend,Newt

P.S. I discussed the Lessons Learned project and answered questions about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the 2016 election live on Facebook this afternoon. Watch the full Q&A here>>

"Republicans" maybe . But not very conservativeCory Gardner, John Kasich, John Cornyn and worst of all Barbara Comstack all have Conservative liberty scores that are low (less than 50%). Not much above the Democrats and indeed some Democrats have higher conservative scores than Comstack who is at a ridiculous 25% score. She may as well be a crat. She votes with them most of the time!

He sure sounds like it. He grinned from ear to ear when someone asked him if he would say yes to a VP pick. a few days ago.

We have always liked him around here but the last time he ran as I think you pointed out he does have his "flaws".

I would be happy if Trump uses his skills for something but - I guess probably not a good idea though for VP. Yet it seems a mistake not to use his persuasive skills for something. He is a huge talent.

Pat will leave the R party until it (or a new party) is re-formed by Trump. But Trump is now in charge of the party the way I understand it. Reince and everyone else serves at his pleasure. Reince is also doing everything asked of him by Trump. Any timidity in a shakeup is now Trump's. He wants to say "you're fired" selectively.

If Pat means wait for all of congress to be reformed in Trump's image, the timing of that is never.

If Pat thinks forming a third party, two parties on the right, is a better idea, he is wrong and at odds with Trump who could have much more easily launched a third party caampaign.

My daughter's commencement speaker was the band director at a college renowned for their music. He hit all the right notes, follow your dream, save the world, etc. Strike out on your own and do anything you want, all by yourself, to make the world a better place. But if you really want to make a difference, form 'a band'. In politics, that is 'a party'. Major parties have more impact than minor ones.

The two party system works better than the alternatives although we seem to currently be at an all time low point. The best way to reform the party of the right is from within. Ted Cruz's de-funding ideas didn't work because we didn't have the votes. Build a wall didn't work because we didn't have the votes - or the right people to carry out the law. Conservatives sit in their homes and businesses being conservative but mostly don't organize, give a dollar or lift a finger to save the country. People like Boehner and Cantor can occasionally be defeated from within, but not when the left controls the debate and we keep losing on their terms.

I've written the-way-forward rants before and our side has done none of it, really done the opposite. Our 18 month campaign of ideas resulted in Obama's approval rating rising while the country and the world deteriorate under his watch. Trump's messaging is still mostly wrong.

Trump is running as a great person, not as a new movement. Pat started a website and would like to start a movement. Great. But more than half of the right will not join and then we are divided and the left wins. To be fair, the left wins anyway so no big, new loss.

We can get special privileges and treatment and cronyism out of government by doing the things that already are our principles, simplifying the tax code, treating everyone the same, ending the goodies that go beyond a genuine safety net. You keep American manufacturers here and see new companies formed faster by streamlining the red tape and knocking down the disincentives. That is already our platform. You hold politicians to their promises through the primary process and the elections, and we don't.

So I oppose his strategy by commend his activism. I wish everyone took it that seriously.

My only comment to this statement is what "future" for the Republican Party does the National Review think they are talking about when Trump likely loses? The only hope will be for a catastrophic Hillary term for the country as a whole including most independents and women taken in with that angle. It will certainly be catastrophic for freedom lovers and our sovereignty who feel are only hope we are left with is Trump.

When President Ronald Reagan nominated Lauro Cavazos in 1988 as the first Latino to serve in a presidential cabinet, he made history.

Today, President-elect Donald Trump is on the verge of making history too. With 16 cabinet-level officials and more than two dozen administration appointments announced, he is on track to appoint the first cabinet without a Latino in more than 28 years. For a president-elect who ran on restoring economic growth, ignoring U.S. Latinos makes little sense. Latinos are driving American economic growth, and they are at the core of what I call America’s New Mainstream Economy.

I encourage Mr. Trump and his advisers to read a new report by economist Jeffrey Eisenach, “Making America Rich Again: The Latino Effect on Economic Growth.” The study shatters myths associated with the U.S. Latino community and documents a growing segment of the U.S. population that is better educated, more employed, more entrepreneurial and more engaged than many understand.ADVERTISINGinRead invented by Teads

Most Americans know that the Latino population in the U.S. is growing fast, but what is less understood is that it has become a major source of entrepreneurs. Latino youth—the workforce of the future—are graduating at higher rates and are more connected online than other segments of the population. The overwhelming majority speak English and were born in the U.S.

Consider these findings in Mr. Eisenach’s study:

• Latinos are driving new business creation. The number of Latino-owned business grew 46% from 2007 to 2012, compared with a decline of more than 2% for non-Latino businesses. There are now more than four million Latino-owned business in the U.S. If not for Latinos, the U.S. would have fewer businesses today than it did in 2007.

• Those businesses are hiring. Head count in Latino-owned businesses increased 22% from 2007 to 2012, against a 2% drop in hiring over the same period for non-Latino businesses.

• Latino incomes are rising fast. Latinos were responsible for 29% of real income growth in the U.S. from 2005 to 2015, with the number of Latino households earning incomes of more than $150,000 growing 194%.

Those numbers are real, and they are unambiguous. Latinos are driving job growth, income growth and new business formation. According to Mr. Eisenach’s report, if U.S. Latino consumers were a country, they would represent the world’s 14th largest economy and that economy would be growing faster than India’s or China’s. That is one important part of the New Mainstream Economy story.

The story gets even better. Today with more than 56 million living in the U.S., Latinos comprise some 17% of the nation’s population. But the median age for Latinos is 28 years old—nine years younger than the overall U.S. population—and Latinos are increasingly well-educated. The share of Latino high-school seniors enrolling in college immediately following graduation jumped 20 percentage points in the 12 years from 2000 to 2012—to 69% from 49%. This now outpaces enrollment rates of white (67%) and black (63%) non-Hispanic high school graduates.

Latinos are also early adopters of that other great driver of U.S. economic growth—technology. Latinos are more likely to use cellphones and smartphones than the general population, just as they are more likely to use online shopping tools and be early adopters of new technology. Latino-driven economic growth is a reality today that will be even more powerful tomorrow.

I am a lifelong businessman. I have run global, large-cap companies, and I have run startups. In all those roles, my instinct has been to look for growth opportunities and to seize them. The New Mainstream Economy represents America’s growth opportunity—and the Latino community is at its core.

The Trump administration must understand this economic reality if it is going to succeed in restoring the kind of growth that will bring prosperity to all Americans. Less regulation and lower taxes are effective recipes for a stronger growth climate for U.S. corporations and for small- and medium-size businesses. Improved access to capital for small- and medium-size businesses is also paramount. Diversity of experience and perspective is always a strength both for a business and for a nation-state.

Those who have been appointed or who will be nominated should seek advice, counsel and information regarding this New Mainstream Economy from those who live it. There are many influential, experienced and knowledgeable Latinos who can offer such advice.

The president-elect prides himself on being a winner and a builder. If he wants to build a winning economy, he cannot simply replicate successful pro-business strategies of the past. He must boost the powerful engines of today’s New Mainstream Economy—a task that requires tapping the expertise of the Latino community.

Mr. Trujillo is chairman of Trujillo Group Investments and former CEO of U.S. West, Orange and Telstra.

Agreed and agreed. At the same time, I do like the way he paints Latinos:

"documents a growing segment of the U.S. population that is better educated, more employed, more entrepreneurial and more engaged than many understand"

Where I grew up, there were lots of people of hispanic ancestry. It wasn't an issue one way or the other. My town's mayor was named Silva before this was some kind of issue. The cops I knew growing up had names like Archuleta and Gallegos. I knew wanted to be like Sgt. Archuleta, and I never gave the origin of his last name a thought. It wasn't a concern I was aware of. Maybe that's something we should strive for as a nation.

Sowell's academic work digs into civilizations and cultures across the world and throughout history, not just current headlines. His past as a Marxist and his journey from Harlem High School to Harvard Law School grad and Univ of Chicago PhD in economics give him an authenticity on many topics that no one can match.

Some time ago I gave Thomas Sowell's great book Basic Economics with a $50 bill in it as a graduation gift to a young friend. I hope he read far enough into it to find the money.

The New York Times pointed out yesterday that Trump ran his candidacy like an Internet start-up. His goal was to use Internet technology to disintermediate the established system (parties, media, etc.) of getting a President elected. Bannon even brought into the team start-up culture mantras:

"move fast and break things"

“figure out what needs doing, and then just do it. Don’t wait for permission.”

I agree and I've been saying something similar for a year. However, I have one important caveat. Unlike wildly successful Internet start-ups, Trump didn't build a technological platform. Instead, he ran an open source political insurgency using social networking. While open source insurgencies are extremely powerful (they have toppled governments and fought wars), they are very difficult to govern with. For example, open source insurgencies dissolve into infighting without an active enemy to fight. Trump's work around for this has been labelling the media as the opposition party and generating controversy. Because Trump's start-up didn't build any technology, he doesn't have a cohesive social network to synergistically unite his political supporters. A synergy that could turn it into a dominant political force. It's still operating in open source insurgency mode (something Steve Bannon understands in his bones). This means there is still a massive opportunity available.

An opportunity to build the first political social network that replaces a traditional party apparatus.

One that operates completely different than any political party we've had in this country.

A political platform that provides direct participation (think apps) in the political process on a daily or hourly basis rather than once every two years.

A platform that could grow to 60 m active participants in less than two years.

A platform that establishes norms of conduct and expectations of the future rather than rips them down.

A political network that allows us, as a country, to aspire to greatness again.

Sincerely,John Robb

PS: This window of opportunity will close fast. Anyone could launch the moonshot to get this done and before it even comes out of stealth alpha, the competition could be over.

PPS: This is likely to be a phase transition in our political system. This means that any errors at the start are amplified manyfold downstream (think in terms of assumptions built into the US Constitution haunted us later in our history).

Simply and rightly, we have come to expect our decisions to yield instant results from the systems that serve us.

Well, that's true for every system except our political system.

We're only allowed to interact with our political system, in a meaningful way, only once every two years and only then by filling out a multiple choice quiz in an election booth.

That's akin to an Internet that only available for a couple of hours every two years at 1,200 baud.

It's crazy in this day and age. Worse, there's increasing evidence it is driving us crazy. We are filling the time in between these electoral events with around the clock political warfare. A ceaseless drumbeat of outrage and conspiracy, amplified by the online echo chambers we spend our time in.

Fortunately, I don't believe this disconnect will last long. A form of direct democracy is coming. One that lets people directly influence the decisions of the people they send to Washington.

A form of interactive democracy that doesn't require any changes to the constitution since it works at the party level and not the national.

When it does, it's going to hit us fast, taking off like wildfire since it fulfills a fundamental need that the current system does not provide.

Here's a quick example from the perspective of the Trump insurgency. Other political parties would need different approaches, but they could if done in the right way (simple approach, scaled quickly by using disruptive marketing, grow from there), grow as quickly as this.

Launching the populist app:

 Trump or Bannon picks an issue: the narrower and more inflammatory (disruptive marketing) the better. Make the vote a yes or no. Trump asks his supporters to tell him what they want (he doesn't ask those opposing him).  His supporters download the app to their smart phones and vote.  A little programming and marketing magic radically improves the number of Trump supporters using the app and reduces spammers/non-supporters attempting to skew the vote down to a trickle. Millions of Trump supporters download the app and vote.  Once the decision is in, the app makes it easy to call or spam message to the user's Congressional representatives. Millions of calls roll in.  A bill that codifies that issue is fast tracked in Congress. Massive pressure via the app and the White House gets it passed quickly. Connecting action and results quickly generates buzz. Repeat. This time with 10 m downloads.  The app evolves. The pressure from the network increases. It consumes the Republican party.

Notice how the system, in a barebones fashion, could become a staple of governance nearly overnight.

Notice too how this doesn't in any way change the system of governance that is already in place. It's a plug and play upgrade (for many and something deeply scary downgrade to many).

Regardless, networked politics is coming. It won't matter if you like it or not. It's inevitable.

How networked politics evolves from this humble beginning is the tricky part.

Get it wrong and we're making the same mistakes we did with the governance of the nation-state prior to WW2 or in replacing feudal with representative governments -- it could end in horrific violence.

Get it right and we could zoom forward economically, socially, and culturally.

Sincerely,John RobbPS: This example is barebones. I've left out most of the nuance. If you want that, you will need to hire me to help you design and build it. I'm an idealist, but I'm also a mercenary capitalist.

The panel on Bret Baier tonight thought it a real error for Trump to pick a fight with the FC, pointing out that when Ryan wanted to dump Trump as candidate when the pussy grab tapes were revealed, the FC guys all solidly stood with Trump.

There also was commentary that Trump was led in the negotiations by the advice of Ryan and that Ryan should have known the lay of the land better.